Executive summary

World-famous cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough called it early. Weeks ago, he said in an interview where Peter and I were both guests that “100% he was vaccine injured.”

I checked with him today to see if his opinion has changed. He just wrote back, “It’s the vax.”

Now we have a new admission, in a GMA interview, that Hamlin has no history of cardiac disease. Click the image above and pay close attention to what he says at the 30 second mark.

We also now know that Damar Hamlin “is still processing” what he learned from his doctors and he wants to avoid talking about it.

This exactly fits the vaccine injury hypothesis… if he was told he was injured by the vaccine which the NFL told him to get, this would create enormous cognitive dissonance that would take a while for most people to process.

Some people speculated that he is so traumatized by the incident, that he doesn’t want to talk about it. But he went to the rest of the playoff games, the Superbowl, the parties after, and now did an interview talking about his experience but doesn’t want to talk about the cause.

Why did he not admit that his doctors ruled out the vaccine?

Damar Hamlin knows that a lot of people believe he was vaccine injured.

He could have said in the interview, “Oh, by the way, the tests ruled out that it was caused by the COVID vaccine. None of my doctors believed it was the vaccine. The tests show this conclusively. People should have no hesitation about getting the COVID vaccine.”

But he said nothing.

If it wasn’t the vaccine, why not admit that? Why didn’t he just put an end to the speculation?

He clearly wants to save lives. If it wasn’t the vaccine, why not exonerate the vaccine? Is there some benefit to keeping us in suspense about this? It’s the #1 thing people are wondering about.

Hamlin is partnering with the American Heart Association to get 3 million people to learn CPR

But the greatest life-saving knowledge he could impart is to tell people to not make the same mistake that he did. But he doesn’t want to talk about that. Why not?

No alternative explanation has been offered by anyone that fits all the facts

While technically it’s possible, in the 100-year history of the NFL, we haven’t seen a player go down like that before. This suggests the cause of Hamlin’s injury is novel, caused by something that only was recently created.

Secondly, the NFL does random drug tests on players and you’d be suspended if you fail a drug test.

Thirdly, the people that know Hamlin say it is unlikely he was on drugs.

Fourthly, Hamlin has no history of substance abuse.

Most importantly, if his injury was caused by cocaine or a performance enhancing drug, Hamlin would know it. There would be no mystery at all. He would not still be “processing” and “still talking through with my doctors” about it. It would be straightforward.

The impression that I got from listening to the interview is that he was surprised by what the doctors told him and that this created enormous cognitive dissonance.

Listen to the full video at 2:20. Hamlin says, “Why did it happen to me?” So it’s clear that Hamlin was very surprised by what happened to him. This is consistent with him taking a vaccine everyone said was safe and he found out it wasn’t. He wouldn’t be wondering that at all if he was taking cocaine, etc.

Finally, the people who claim it wasn’t vaccine related have not produced a plausible explanation that fits the facts.

Is there a world famous cardiologist who would go on record today saying, “It’s not the vax”?

Ad hominem attacks

When people resort to ad hominem attacks, it’s a tacit admission that they can’t argue with me on the facts.

They never articulate a more likely fact pattern that is supported by actual evidence.

For example, people are still attacking me today for saying that the medical experts I consulted with told me that 9 minutes of CPR made it unlikely that Hamlin would survive. According to Survival after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a major referral center: “Duration of CPR >10 minutes was predictive of significantly decreased survival.” So why attack me on that? Why not just tell us the more likely scenario that fits all the evidence?

Summary

There is no other explanation that I’m aware of that is consistent with all the evidence.